*******************
*Finally the Durova RfC*
*******************
From: (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:28:14 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
FYI: There is an RFC against Durova. It is the first step in her
self-defined admin recall process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._comment/DurovaMakes for interesting reading.
Sydney
----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:55:25 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
If I'm reading all this right, Durova told interested parties to "ask
Arbcom." As discussed elsewhere, we've reserved this sort of jack-bootery
for pedophiles and other nasty sorts, and we've usually signed off on the
block beforehand (at least via IRC). I don't believe Durova cleared this
with Arbcom beforehand; I would have been extremely hesitant to agree to
such a block given the evidence. Did Durova discuss this block with anyone
on this list, and did anyone on this list give their imprimatur as an
arbitrator?
Charles
----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:55:05 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
Actually, as far as I can tell, the result she got was silence.
On Nov 23, 2007 3:55 PM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:
> If I'm reading all this right, Durova told interested parties to "ask
> Arbcom." As discussed elsewhere, we've reserved this sort of jack-bootery
> for pedophiles and other nasty sorts, and we've usually signed off on the
> block beforehand (at least via IRC). I don't believe Durova cleared this
> with Arbcom beforehand; I would have been extremely hesitant to agree to
> such a block given the evidence. Did Durova discuss this block with anyone
> on this list, and did anyone on this list give their imprimatur as an
> arbitrator?
>
> Charles
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:58:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
Charles Fulton wrote:
> If I'm reading all this right, Durova told interested parties to "ask
> Arbcom." As discussed elsewhere, we've reserved this sort of
> jack-bootery for pedophiles and other nasty sorts, and we've usually
> signed off on the block beforehand (at least via IRC). I don't believe
> Durova cleared this with Arbcom beforehand; I would have been extremely
> hesitant to agree to such a block given the evidence. Did Durova discuss
> this block with anyone on this list, and did anyone on this list give
> their imprimatur as an arbitrator?
I did not, and I believe that no one did.
Here is how I see this, for what it is worth, and opinions may
legitimately vary:
1. The block was a bad block, even given the evidence.
2. The evidence is good, valid, and proved quite conclusively that the
user in question was not a newbie but rather an experienced user. The
right response to this would be alarm (!! is not exactly a soothing
username either) and then asking Jimbo or an ArbCom member to privately
contact the person for an explanation. Not a block.
3. Durova (over)acted in good faith under the influence of SlimVirgin
and other users who are hardline and (frankly) a bit paranoid about
infiltration by WR and similar trolls.
4. The block was for exactly 75 minutes. As soon as Durova realized her
mistake (quickly) she unblocked and started apologizing massively to
everyone. This is evidence of good faith.
5. I have gotten several emails about this from people who have been fed
false information... the usual nonsense. Durova allegedly libeled
people, and oversight covered it up. The usual: Jimbo has a friend who
is under special protection, admin abuse, yadda yadda yadda.
6. Durova is under no special protection from me, and I think the bad
block warrants a tiny slap on the wrist if it comes to that. A finding
of fact that the block was bad, and "Durova is to exercise caution in
similar situations in the future."
7. There has been more drama about this than is warranted, mostly
because it is a great playground for our usual drama queens.
Durova is:
a) a friend of SlimVirgin (she's a spy!) - Brandt/Wordbomb trolls
b) writing for SEO blogs (nevermind that she is publicizing the
Wikipedia party line, she's a spammer!) - Kohs trolling
c) on the "wrong side" against Giano (aieee!)
So she's managed to upset all the usual suspects.
--Jimbo
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:59:13 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
Josh is right. She sent out the evidence, no one listened, she wrongly
took that as a greenlight.
As for me, I plead drowning. I have 953 unread emails from the
cyberstalking mailing list alone.
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:09:20 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
On Nov 23, 2007 8:58 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> 2. The evidence is good, valid, and proved quite conclusively that the
> user in question was not a newbie but rather an experienced user. The
> right response to this would be alarm (!! is not exactly a soothing
> username either) and then asking Jimbo or an ArbCom member to privately
> contact the person for an explanation. Not a block.
>
> 3. Durova (over)acted in good faith under the influence of SlimVirgin
> and other users who are hardline and (frankly) a bit paranoid about
> infiltration by WR and similar trolls.
>
Yes, I think this is the essential practical point here. All these new
mailing lists that seem to have sprung up over the past few months are
largely self-selected in their membership, and their analysis of evidence
seems to be pretty strongly colored by the purpose of the list. They're
fine as places for discussion, but they shouldn't be treated as bodies that
apply stamps of approval to something, or that make decisions regarding
blocking and other sanctions.
7. There has been more drama about this than is warranted, mostly
> because it is a great playground for our usual drama queens.
>
> Durova is:
>
> a) a friend of SlimVirgin (she's a spy!) - Brandt/Wordbomb trolls
> b) writing for SEO blogs (nevermind that she is publicizing the
> Wikipedia party line, she's a spammer!) - Kohs trolling
> c) on the "wrong side" against Giano (aieee!)
>
> So she's managed to upset all the usual suspects.
Also, unfortunately, (d) upset !! (who happens to be a major content
producer) sufficiently that he may have left the project; so the whole
"admins are oppressing the content editors" crowd is out in force as well.
(But, really, this whole mess is basically a demonstration of how a
succession of small mistakes -- and poorly-thought-out attempts at damage
control -- can snowball into a big deal.)
Kirill
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:27:46 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
I went back and looked after this went down.
I got the email on the mailing list the week I was on vacation with my husband.
Durova also upset some reasonable editors by her original refusal to
discuss the block on wiki, instead telling her admin peers to talk to
ArbCom.
This came across as being uncollaborative and somewhat self important,
I think. That is part of the reason that otherwise reasonable editors
were still talking about it days later.
Sydney
-----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:38:19 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
FloNight wrote:
> This came across as being uncollaborative and somewhat self important,
> I think. That is part of the reason that otherwise reasonable editors
> were still talking about it days later.
I think the word "self important" as a perception here is important.
I think there is probably a good corollary to the (content-space) old
saying of "Be bold!"
As an admin, the rule of thumb could be:
"When in doubt, do nothing. It's a wiki. You can always block them and
clean up their mess tomorrow. Sleep on it. Ask a friend."
The key here is "when in doubt". I think for all of us, when we have
made an error (my big one was Essjay) there was an alarm bell that was
not heeded. A good nights sleep and asking a friend might help.
Slow to act, quick to forgive.
--Jimbo
-----------
From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:47:11 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
Jimbo wrote:
> The key here is "when in doubt". I think for all of us, when we have
> made an error (my big one was Essjay) there was an alarm bell that was
> not heeded. A good nights sleep and asking a friend might help.
While wise counsel in general, I disagree that this is the lesson we
should take from this.
Fundamentally, any process for identifying "sleeper trolls" -- i.e.
reincarnations of banned users, users created deliberately to game the
system, get admin status to sell on ebay, WR accounts, Bagley, etc etc
etc -- will produce false positives. There isn't enough data to get it
right, and all the checkusering and edit pattern analysis and so on is
not going to distinguish someone who edited as an anon for six weeks
before creating an account from an account being groomed.
I have made a number of mistakes in this area myself in the past. It's
amazing what you convince yourself of.
I don't think we've formed a consensus as a project that the collateral
damage done by something like what Durova is engaging in is worth it.
If we were willing to endure collateral damage on that scale, measures
such as requiring identity confirmation in certain situations (as an
example; this is not something I advocate) would be more effective in
producing a more trusted user base than engaging in pattern recognition
on the edit history.
I think we have to refocus the civility discussion on specific actions:
"here is the line, cross it at your peril." No more
Zomg!troll/karmafist/Lir/Wik/24/CheeseDreams/Bagley/whoever. For one
thing, by the time the pattern becomes clear, too much damage has been
done.
Steve
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:58:08 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
Okay, the case is up at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Durova_and_Jehochman>.
My personal preference is that you accept the case as soon as
reasonable, to deflect the inevitable drama coming my way, but that's up
to you. ;-) I'm hoping I've framed the case well enough that it doesn't
tur out too crazily.
Dominic
-----------
From: jehochman(Jonathan Hochman)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:26:13 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wowsers
I suppose this evidence needs to be considered given the point that
JzG has made.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gregory Kohs
Date: Nov 22, 2007 11:53 PM
Subject: Wowsers
To: Jonathan Hochman, Jimmy Wales
Publishing private emails on Wikipedia without permission of the
author is a big no-no. An editor who does that may be sanctioned.
Additionally, publishing somebody's private email address so they can
be spammed or harassed may result in a siteban. A better path would be
emailing the evidence to Arbcom and asking them to review any
concerns. - Jehochman
You're pulling out all the stops, not to have your mentor Durova embarrassed.
What's Wikipedia's "no-no" policy on libeling another person by name
on site, then not providing any evidence of the claim? Recall that
Durova said I "gave misleading information to journalists" and it put
me in a fit. Her refusal to provide evidence led me to design a
campaign to discredit her modus operandi. How do you think that's
been working out for her lately?
Jonathan, I'm telling you -- you would be very wise to just put down
the shovel for a month and just watch what happens before you come
back. The hole you're in is only getting deeper. Is Wikipedia really
THIS important to you? Is being on the obviously losing side of an
argument THAT important to you?
Jimmy, I'm telling you -- when I complained back about eight months
ago (shortly after you kindly unblocked my account, and I began to
make helpful contributions to harmless articles about the Czech Air
Force, a highway in Michigan, and an Arizona performance artist) that
Durova was making falsified defamatory comments about my integrity
with journalists, you jumped to her side -- even without evidence.
Now, her evidentiary practices are being roundly LAUGHED AT (not
evaluated, mind you -- but, laughed at), and you're still coming to
her aid, and I'm stuck out in the cold, still wondering why Durova was
allowed to make libel and fraudulent claims so central a part of her
repertoire.
You've both heard my opinions multiple times. Looking at how Durova
has currently made both of you the butt of jokes, only eight months
after I complained to you about how her claims cannot be trusted, I
can only say, "I told you so."
Jimbo and Jonathan, back in August 2006, Jimmy said to me, "Greg, be
quiet for a minute, listen to me, and you might learn something." I
believe I'm now in a position to say the exact same thing to both of
you. I have several ideas that would readily improve the environment
and reputation of Wikipedia, and if you want to hear them, maybe we
could have a conference call sometime this weekend, or whenever it's
convenient for everyone.
Greg
----------
From: (Jonathan Hochman)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:13:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Just to be clear
Just to be perfectly clear in case this is not obvious already: any
and all issues I have ever had with El C are fully resolved. Please
consider my past statement withdrawn.
If anyone is concerned about anything I circulate to this private
mailing list, you can tell me to stop, and I will. Thank you.
--
Jonathan Hochman
Malice's note: Watch as the wild Jehochman attempts to backpedal and slink away when caught out of it's territory with it's arse exposed.----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:04:36 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
Steve Dunlop wrote:
> I don't think we've formed a consensus as a project that the collateral
> damage done by something like what Durova is engaging in is worth it.
While I certainly agree with that, in reading over Dmcdevit's statement
in the Durova and Jehochman case, I wonder if I might be in the minority
on something, and ask the ArbCom to set me straight if I am wrong.
When a good user is wrongly blocked, what is the proper response from
other users (admins and non-admins)?
My view is that the best response is absolute calm. An improper block
can always be reversed, and instantly. The right thing to do is to
politely raise the concern with the blocking admin, and discuss the case
in a spirit of goodwill all around. Even the blockee and the blocker
should be expected to exhibit goodwill, a bedrock assumption that "a
mistake has been made" rather than a jump toward drama and hysteria.
In this particular case, the block was bad. Lots of things went wrong
to cause the block to be bad. She should have approached the user first
to inquire discreetly. She should have gotten approval from the ArbCom
or at least from an Arbiter or me acting independently. (I doubt any of
us would have given it, and would have of course advised talking to the
user first... if for no other reason than to glean more information first.)
But after the block was shown to be bad, instant and thorough apology
was given, the block was lifted after 75 minutes, etc.
My point is that the "collateral damage" was not from the bad block: bad
blocks are going to happen from time to time, with 1,000 admins, every
now and then one of them is going to flake and do something stupid or
angry, even the good ones.
The "collateral damage" was from the conspiracy-theorizing and drama
mongering from the usual braying crowd.
Am I in the minority here in that I view the bad block as basically no
big deal?
--Jimbo
p.s. Separately, I think the sleuthing was pretty good, other than the
assumption of bad faith that permeates it. She did find and prove quite
conclusively (and correctly) that the user was not a newbie, and the
behavior of the account is more or less exactly what we would expect of
a "sleeper" trying to get adminship. This was sufficient to raise an
eyebrow, and such users are certainly worth keeping an eye on.
In this case, if I had seen the evidence, I would have concluded that it
would be necessary to ask the user privately "what's up? obviously you
are not a newbie. no problem if you are a returning user for some
reason, do you mind telling me who?" The block was not justified, the
assumption of bad faith was not justified. But the sleuthing was pretty
good.
Malice's note: Let me see if I understand mate: harassing innocent users due to one's paranoia is "no big deal". Gotcha.----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:27:09 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
What concerns me is that Durova acted in secret, without consulting the
committee, and then when the shit justifiably hit the fan referred inquiries
to the committee! As far as I know the committee was not consulted ahead of
time, and it is my sense that if Durova had run the matter past the
committee we would have urged extreme caution. The nature of this action
dilutes the committee's authority and impairs our ability to conduct our own
investigations.
It's not just a bad block. It's a bad block that proceeded from faulty
assumptions, encouraged by an environment that I can only characterize as
amateur and paranoid, to judge by the outcomes. This is not healthy, and
this isn't the first time we've seen a bad block arise from these sorts of
circumstances.
Some people are framing the debate in terms of WR and Gregory Kohs. I
frankly couldn't care less. This isn't a war, our administrators are not
soldiers, and at the end of the day we've lost a good contributor rightly
angered at Durova's peremptory treatment of him. Yes, Durova successfully
recognized a returning account. The logical leap from returning account to
banned user is shattering. Even long-term checkusers aren't that cynical and
paranoid, although they have every reason to be.
This isn't right, and if brushed off as a one-time incident will reoccur.
Charles
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:48:57 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> While I certainly agree with that, in reading over Dmcdevit's statement
> in the Durova and Jehochman case, I wonder if I might be in the minority
> on something, and ask the ArbCom to set me straight if I am wrong.
>
No, I think we can agree on this.
> My view is that the best response is absolute calm. An improper block
> can always be reversed, and instantly. The right thing to do is to
> politely raise the concern with the blocking admin, and discuss the case
> in a spirit of goodwill all around. Even the blockee and the blocker
> should be expected to exhibit goodwill, a bedrock assumption that "a
> mistake has been made" rather than a jump toward drama and hysteria.
>
> In this particular case, the block was bad. Lots of things went wrong
> to cause the block to be bad. She should have approached the user first
> to inquire discreetly. She should have gotten approval from the ArbCom
> or at least from an Arbiter or me acting independently. (I doubt any of
> us would have given it, and would have of course advised talking to the
> user first... if for no other reason than to glean more information first.)
>
> But after the block was shown to be bad, instant and thorough apology
> was given, the block was lifted after 75 minutes, etc.
>
The issue is broader than this block. It has happened a lot, and it is
the result of a particular mindset that has affected Durova and others
and it seems that no matter how many past bad blocks she made (and there
were others) she just chalks is up to "false positives" and notes how
hard this sleuthing business is. She wasn't going to change her behavior
once this blew over, in my opinion. As well, having read what she said,
the closest she ever got to "thorough apology" was apologizing "for the
inconvenience" to the innocent, regular editor she had just banned
without warning as a sockpuppet of an unnamed troll.
>
> The "collateral damage" was from the conspiracy-theorizing and drama
> mongering from the usual braying crowd.
>
> Am I in the minority here in that I view the bad block as basically no
> big deal?
A bad block in isolation would not have been a big deal. I think this
one was rightly a big deal, as part of a general pattern. That doesn't
mean that the drama-mongerers weren't out in force, but there was still
substance to the complaint. I also think this block, even in isolation,
was sort of a bigger deal than most. !! turns out to be one of our more
productive and established article editors, and seems to think that his
previous username (his real name) will put him at risk if outed, and now
he has indicated his wish to leave. I don't believe he will end up
leaving for good, but it's worth considering the affects of the block
that can't be taken back.
Dominic
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:23:26 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
On 24/11/2007, Dmcdevit wrote:
> A bad block in isolation would not have been a big deal. I think this
> one was rightly a big deal, as part of a general pattern. That doesn't
> mean that the drama-mongerers weren't out in force, but there was still
> substance to the complaint. I also think this block, even in isolation,
> was sort of a bigger deal than most. !! turns out to be one of our more
> productive and established article editors, and seems to think that his
> previous username (his real name) will put him at risk if outed, and now
> he has indicated his wish to leave. I don't believe he will end up
> leaving for good, but it's worth considering the affects of the block
> that can't be taken back.
The problem is that Durova's not entirely wrong. We do in actual fact
have fairly organised groups of people trying to fuck up the
encyclopedia for commercial gain. Durova's very good at spotting them.
Now, she may need to tone it down considerably, but she is not chasing
phantoms.
- d.
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:04:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
> Yes, I think this is the essential practical point here. All these new
> mailing lists that seem to have sprung up over the past few months are
> largely self-selected in their membership, and their analysis of evidence
> seems to be pretty strongly colored by the purpose of the list. They're
> fine as places for discussion, but they shouldn't be treated as bodies that
> apply stamps of approval to something, or that make decisions regarding
> blocking and other sanctions.
As has been pointed out more than once, Durova got no approval to
block from *anyone* on the list.
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:05:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
On Nov 24, 2007 5:27 PM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:
> What concerns me is that Durova acted in secret, without consulting the
> committee, and then when the shit justifiably hit the fan referred inquiries
> to the committee! As far as I know the committee was not consulted ahead of
> time, and it is my sense that if Durova had run the matter past the
> committee we would have urged extreme caution. The nature of this action
> dilutes the committee's authority and impairs our ability to conduct our own
> investigations.
Yes. The block -- taken by itself -- was a big mistake; but I doubt things
would have blown up quite so spectacularly if not for Durova's misguided
insistence on not discussing anything.
Kirill
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:07:16 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
> > Yes, I think this is the essential practical point here. All these new
> > mailing lists that seem to have sprung up over the past few months are
> > largely self-selected in their membership, and their analysis of
> evidence
> > seems to be pretty strongly colored by the purpose of the list. They're
> > fine as places for discussion, but they shouldn't be treated as bodies
> that
> > apply stamps of approval to something, or that make decisions regarding
> > blocking and other sanctions.
>
> As has been pointed out more than once, Durova got no approval to
> block from *anyone* on the list.
That may be true, but it's not really the point I'm making. The question
shouldn't have been asked of a self-selected list in the first place.
Kirill
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:14:01 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
> That may be true, but it's not really the point I'm making. The question
> shouldn't have been asked of a self-selected list in the first place.
I understand your point, but I don't think it's relevant in this case,
because as far as I can tell she didn't ask the "self-selected list"
anything to begin with.
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:18:05 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
> I understand your point, but I don't think it's relevant in this case,
> because as far as I can tell she didn't ask the "self-selected list"
> anything to begin with.
I was under the impression that her report had been distributed to one of
the new mailing lists (see also her comments about WR not knowing about the
list); but maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.
Kirill
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:19:38 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
> I was under the impression that her report had been distributed to one of
> the new mailing lists (see also her comments about WR not knowing about the
> list); but maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.
She sent it to the list; she didn't ask the list if she should block !!
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:22:58 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
> She sent it to the list; she didn't ask the list if she should block !!
>
Ah, ok; I see your point now.
Kirill
-----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:36:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> Yes. The block -- taken by itself -- was a big mistake; but I doubt
> things would have blown up quite so spectacularly if not for Durova's
> misguided insistence on not discussing anything.
Even a comment of "It looks like it could be a sleeper account by
someone who knows a lot about Wikipedia for a newbie. My block is out
of an abundance of caution, and I hope people will take this up with the
ArbCom." would have been better, yes.
It would have still been a bad move, of course.
--Jimbo
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:40:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> I was under the impression that her report had been distributed to one
> of the new mailing lists (see also her comments about WR not knowing
> about the list); but maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.
She sent it to the cyberstalking mailing list. I am on that list, and
it has 974 unread messages right now. So I never saw it and my guess is
that most of the people on that list find it as overwhelming as I do.
I don't think she asked that list and felt that she had approval from
that list. She sent the report, no one seemed to say anything, she took
that (for some reason) as tacit approval.
It would be fine for us to formally say that while it can in some
(rare!) cases be fine to have private evidence and to consult with the
ArbCom privately about things, particular when there is an interest in
avoiding useless public drama when one is concerned about something but
not sure... it is not ok to shovel stuff on us without warning. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:13:01 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
On Nov 24, 2007 7:07 PM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> That may be true, but it's not really the point I'm making. The question
> shouldn't have been asked of a self-selected list in the first place.
>
> Kirill
Why? I do not agree with the idea that users should not collaborate
with each other by email. Personally, I much prefer email to IRC
channels for lengthy discussions about banned users.
Sydney
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:12:52 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
On 25/11/2007, FloNight <sydney.poore> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2007 7:07 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > That may be true, but it's not really the point I'm making. The question
> > shouldn't have been asked of a self-selected list in the first place.
> Why? I do not agree with the idea that users should not collaborate
> with each other by email. Personally, I much prefer email to IRC
> channels for lengthy discussions about banned users.
Yes. You're not going to stop editors talking to each other however
they please. The working definition of "cabal" for wikidrama queens
appears to be "group I'm not in."
- d.
----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:16:12 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
We will need to resolve this case as swiftly as possible--two to three
days--to avoid additional drama. A month-long case doesn't bear thinking.
Given sufficient evidence, I think the areas of interest are (1)
administrative discussion, (2) secret evidence, and (3) the role of the
arbitration committee. Giano's posting of emails falls under (2).
I think some reasonable outcomes would be these:
1. Asserting that "secret evidence" may not be used to justify a block
without the consent of the Arbitration Committee or other group held
responsible to the community. This is inline (or was), with the developing
consensus at Wikipedia:Confidential evidence.
2. Emails may not be posted to WP without the consent of the sender. I think
we ruled on this in Hkelkar 2.
3. Some kind of reprimand for Durova; possibly forcing the admin recall
process to go forward. Ordering an RfA itself would be cruel.
Charles
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:19:13 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
On Nov 24, 2007 7:13 PM, FloNight wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2007 7:07 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > That may be true, but it's not really the point I'm making. The question
> > shouldn't have been asked of a self-selected list in the first place.
> >
> > Kirill
>
> Why? I do not agree with the idea that users should not collaborate
> with each other by email. Personally, I much prefer email to IRC
> channels for lengthy discussions about banned users.
Yes, and this was the point I didn't address. Durova didn't ask for
advice on whether she should block !!, but there would have been
nothing wrong with her doing so. Indeed, it's probably a good idea for
people to get input from others before making blocking decisions.
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:21:57 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
> Yes. You're not going to stop editors talking to each other however
> they please. The working definition of "cabal" for wikidrama queens
> appears to be "group I'm not in."
Indeed; but such discussion shouldn't be cited as a reason for doing
anything in and of itself. "We discussed it on $secretMailingList" isn't a
justification for a block any more so than "We discussed it on IRC".
(Aside from that, one drawback of such lists is that they tend to provide a
response colored by the self-selected nature of the list. If you're looking
into blocking a potential WR sleeper account, you'd expect different
responses from asking a list of people gathered out of concern over
WR-driven stalking versus asking a list of, say, random admins.)
Kirill
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:26:02 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
> We will need to resolve this case as swiftly as possible--two to three
> days--to avoid additional drama. A month-long case doesn't bear thinking.
> Given sufficient evidence, I think the areas of interest are (1)
> administrative discussion, (2) secret evidence, and (3) the role of the
> arbitration committee. Giano's posting of emails falls under (2).
>
> I think some reasonable outcomes would be these:
>
> 1. Asserting that "secret evidence" may not be used to justify a block
> without the consent of the Arbitration Committee or other group held
> responsible to the community. This is inline (or was), with the developing
> consensus at Wikipedia:Confidential evidence.
>
> 2. Emails may not be posted to WP without the consent of the sender. I
> think we ruled on this in Hkelkar 2.
>
> 3. Some kind of reprimand for Durova; possibly forcing the admin recall
> process to go forward. Ordering an RfA itself would be cruel.
Those look fine. I'd also add:
4. A general admonition that we're not here for drama (probably worked in
with "deliberately provocative editing", or something of the sort).
Whether we actually need to deal with the major participants more harshly,
I'm not sure. As a practical matter, trying to agree on sanctions for some
of these established editors will probably cause the case to drag out.
Kirill
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:59:16 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
> Whether we actually need to deal with the major participants more harshly,
> I'm not sure. As a practical matter, trying to agree on sanctions for some
> of these established editors will probably cause the case to drag out.
>
> Kirill
We really need to be careful not to handcuff our diligent and CAREFUL
sockpuppet hunters. Looking for really problematic banned users socks
and quickly blocking them without a lot of fanfare is a good thing.
This happens quite often under our enforcement provisions, I think.
According to my reading of the threads on the RFC and the new policy
talk pages, some users are trying to say that no sock accounts of
banned users should be blocked until an on site discussion happens and
the sock account is found to be disruptive. This is too restrictive, I
think.
The problem with Durova is that she is not being careful enough now. I
don't know if she has gotten over confident and sloppy or if she is
just not good at doing the work.
Let's not over react to her mistake and make a general rule that over
involves us in work that careful admins can do.
Sydney
----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:29:01 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
The community can sort that out for itself, I think. Certainly checkuser
activities won't be affected. I don't see any reason to rule on sock policy;
we should do that on Privatemusings.
Charles
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:40:41 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova
jayjg wrote:
>
> I understand your point, but I don't think it's relevant in this case,
> because as far as I can tell she didn't ask the "self-selected list"
> anything to begin with.
>
In fact, her characterization of the report on-wiki as having asked the
opinion of others seems more than a little disingenuous. Read over the
actual report forwarded to the list by Paul and you'll see that it was
some sort of lesson in uncovering sockpuppets with Durova using !! as an
example, and basically presupposing his guilt, not asking for input.
This was one of the most surprising aspects for me (and the
"self-important" description does ring true after reading it).
Dominic
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:39:38 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
On 25/11/2007, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:
> 3. Some kind of reprimand for Durova; possibly forcing the admin recall
> process to go forward. Ordering an RfA itself would be cruel.
I strongly suggest that throwing her to the trolls would not be in the
best interests of the project. We need someone, or preferably
someones, doing what she does; an arbcom action that is seen to
penalise that (rather than admonishing not to do it that much) is
feeding the trolls.
- d.
----------
From: mackensen (Charles Fulton)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:48:15 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
I think the trolls have gorged themselves; we have to look to our own
processes and structures regardless. As I've indicated, I don't think any
individual sanctions would be practical in this case.
-----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:48:22 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
Agreed. I don't see need for reprimand; the damage is done, and we'd just be
salting the wound. The worst error was taking silence for consent.
--
--jpgordon ????
-----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:48:40 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
David Gerard wrote:
>
> I strongly suggest that throwing her to the trolls would not be in the
> best interests of the project. We need someone, or preferably
> someones, doing what she does; an arbcom action that is seen to
> penalise that (rather than admonishing not to do it that much) is
> feeding the trolls.
>
If we need someone doing what she does, we need someone to do it *well*.
Giving her a free pass will also not accomplish that, especially if she
continues.
Dominic
----------
From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:25:53 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
I agree with David. Also, I don't believe it is wise to do anything
that legitimizes the "admin recall" process. Before long we're going to
see people expected to make a commitment to "admin recall" during RFA,
which will further politicize the behavior of admins.
Steve
----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:30:53 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
Durova legitimized this admin recall business by agreeing to it in the first
place. I've never liked the concept; agreeing to it suggests that you
wouldn't know when to resign. On the other hand, I think we need to be clear
on whether an arbitration case supersedes any open RfCs concerning any
involved parties. Some people have suggested that it does, and we've forced
the issue by starting this case.
Charles
----------
From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:32:24 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
I think it's important to make it clear that we don't support the
"midnight knock" business and didn't issue a pass. Her investigative
methods weren't unique enough or specific enough to warrant the secrecy.
Durova's perceptive -- an extremely token wrist slap should be enough
to get her to be more careful in the future.
Steve
Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list, and AC acting on those "investigations"
MaliceAforethought Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list 
